MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401770230 · doi:10.1111/nup.12498

Reframing covenant for nursing: From individual commitments to covenant with society

2024· article· en· W4401770230 on OpenAlexaff
Dorolen Wolfs, Darlaine Jantzen, Marsha D. Fowler, Lynn Musto, Sheryl Reimer‐Kirkham

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Philosophy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingCovenantIdentity (music)NursingHealth careNursing carePsychologySociologyPublic relationsLawMedicinePolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today's constrained healthcare environment can make it very difficult for nurses to provide compassionate, competent, and ethical care, and yet their continued commitment to care is viewed as requisite. Nurses' commitment to care of patients, enmeshed with professional identity, may be understood as heroic. A few nursing scholars have advanced the concept of a nurse-patient covenant to explain or inspire nurses' commitment to care. Covenant describes an enduring relationship characterised by mutual promises and generous responsiveness. However, recent critique has revealed a general misunderstanding and misuse of the term covenant in much of the nursing literature whereby individual nurses are improperly and impossibly idealised as holding sole responsibility in the commitment to care. Such an interpretation obscures society's responsibilities in caring for both patients and nurses and contributes to the idealisation of nurses' commitment to extend themselves to fill in healthcare system gaps. Yet, the concept of a covenant relationship, when reframed as occurring between society and the profession of nursing, may lead us toward solutions to the very problems the originally misused concept sustained. Evidence within healthcare systems globally suggests that nurses' commitments are fragile or fragmented under duress due to increasing pressure, demands, and even risks. A reframing of covenant has the common good for society and nursing at its core and, we argue, may lead to a more sustainable nursing identity. We present the results of an exploratory project, undertaken to examine the utility and suitability of covenant as a relational framework for nursing. We explore a reframing of a covenant of care as a relationship between nursing and society, which may provide a fruitful path toward a sustainable, shared commitment for healthcare. This covenant of care re-centres shared work-a joint responsibility between society and nursing-as necessary for the common good.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0330.047
Scholarly communication0.0190.022
Open science0.0030.043
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.143
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing PhilosophySame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207